"Gulfstream has released new drawings of a supersonic business jet design in patent application forms, revealing features such as a telescoping nose, highly-sloped fuselage and variable-geometry wings." Doesn't look like the boys in Savannah are gonna let Cessna hold on to the "World's Fastest" title forever. (www.flightglobal.com) Altro...

not to much of a looker. the shape doesn't appeal to me. long thin body with the long thin wings in the back. the shape along the side angle and nose cone don't help. if one of does a nosedive, it's going to stick like a dart

That would have to be for somebody with a lot of International business that needed to be in a hurry to get it done, or somebody on one coast doing a lot of business on the other, but I doubt if anybody in our bunch is in that big of a hurry.lol

I don't think I have ever seen any supersonic transport with so much dihedral. Im sure it will change a bit between this drawing and delivered aircraft, the plane doesn't look right. I wonder what the V speeds would be for this thing. Imagine if the swept wing froze (like flaps do) - what would that approach speed be like and how much runway would that eat up. I think there was an F14 that couldn't change back from high speed configuration but I never heard how he landed or where. Would be nice to see supersonic flight make a comeback. Like the Concorde, it would be a flagship of what is technologically possible. It definitely would be the rich man's "must have" to signal his wealth and power. Even if the plane was flown subsonically to save fuel most of the time - its a huge status symbol when you have an SST side by side with a Beech-jet. I hope they do it right- not like the beech starship. Even with quieter supersonic booms I would imagine it would still have a noticeable or distinct sound. When I flew the piaggio P180 many people said it was louder than any other aircraft, even jets like the MD88... but when you measured the Db level it was same or lower. People heard the P180 more because it sounded different than the other aircraft so it stood out. If this aircraft has a different sound I am sure people will complain that it is too noisy even if it isn't... so they have their work cut out for them. In a nation that doesn't mind if Harley davidson's pass by your house at 2am, but call the airport manager when a Cessna flies after 9pm- I wonder how well this SST will do in the night hours when you really can go faster with less traffic. Even in the CL-65 with only a .85 Mach top speed, ATC slows you down quite a bit during the day. Many times we were slowed to .77 or .70... so when you put these two issues (daytime congestion and nighttime noise) I don't know if it will be used for coast to coast travel in the US. One thing for sure though, when these babies are in production I would love to fly it :) Thats the best part of flying for a living - someone else gets to buy the cool toys and then we get to play with it. :)

I am conducting an investigation of Avantair on behalf of investors. I am a retired FBI agent and I would like to contact former Avantair pilots like ypurself about Avantair's failure to do necessary maintenance. Jerry Richards JFR2674@gmail.com

That's all cool-aid. The plane may be nice on paper but it's a hanger queen. I have never seen any other aircraft with a PT6 that had as many engine failures. Then there are the door cables that keep breaking, or the door seals that fail constantly. But that's nothing compared to a ref speed of 120-130 with no anti-skid breaks, brakes that if used aggressively even once could end up with a blown tire and scratch the wheel hub and brake assembly in half, and that is nothing compared to the myriad frozen flight controls in flight... The plane looks good on paper - and even from far away - but get to close and you'll see the bondo all over the plane, it has serious issues- and yes many of those problems could have been operator specific - but you couldn't get a rock solid platform to have as many problems if you tried. It's Italian - they are known for mx heavy vehicles that can be costly to maintain. A lamborghini mechanic told me that if you look at the total cost of ownership - it costs an average owner over 2500 each time the keys go into the ignition - notice I didn't say start the engine - because they don't always start. Same goes for the P180 which is why we had a handful of canabalized aircraft in our hanger (those owners were not to happy about that, let me tell you) - and they didn't have a choice because not only is the plane a hanger queen - but parts take forever and a day to arrive from the land of pasta and piaggio scooters, uh - I mean airplanes. The external design was fantastic, but many of us pilots always discussed how it seems like the engineers tried their hardest to screw up all the systems. I mean, really- why put a pitot drain at a high point of the system - most drains on earth are at the lowest point - but I shit you not - it's in the upper half of the network of plastic tubes. God, the nose gear- why didn't I start with the nose gear - the plane has only single tire mains but a double tire nose gear. Now, in order to make the plane as awkward as possible- the gear comes down in an angle, so now, when you turn either direction- one wheel rides on its sidewall while the other lifts off the pavement. And that makes it real squarely on the ground - but not squirmy enough - so to help make it even worse- they decided that the rudders won't be mechanically connected to the nose wheel but it is connected to the huge rudder. So now, while you have no tactile feel for the nose gear - when a gust of wind hits the tail it makes steering in windy conditions difficult to say the least - but then. - to seal the deal - they installed a really bad steering motor/servo. So when you taxi in windy conditions the nose wheel steering system fails constantly. - and there are some real safety issues in flight- like the flaps system that doesnt monitor the flaps position, but rather if the motor is in sync. So you can have a motor spinning freely without affecting the flap itself, have a huge asymmetric flap situation and not even have an indication. - oh the list is too long to complete here - But don't get too excited about the numbers- the P180 loses its luster when you look closer. And yet I was saddened when I could no longer fly it - but now looking back - I clearly miss flying but I ambient miss that catfish one bit. Of the perspective owners knew what I did - they would pay more not for the prestige of a jet - but because they would know the whole truth. As for speed- that's total BS - the plane may fly .70 when new - but just a year later it won't even do that. The POH/AFM even deducts 5% for a dirty airplane. And ATC is constantly making you descend to get out of the way of faster traffic - burning a ton of extra gas - and now even shorter flights need a fuel stop - but the operator doesn't like pilots to plan fuel stops- no they want to divert for fuel so that sales can keep selling its lie. The piaggio is the plane that almost was. I hope this SST will be better - and it probably will- because it's company is known for building great airplanes - not mainly mopeds and occasionally aircraft. Their workers make planes and replacement parts year round- and they make a good quality product. On the P180 even the interior is garbage. Drawers that won't stay shut, window shades that droop or fall apart, emergency exits blocked by interior covering falling off the high tech Velcro - the bathroom door than doesn't close fully - the honey bucket rather than external servicing (which many aircraft have) but on the P180 it is a big deal because of the sheer number of issues. Like having to climb onto the wing (need a ladder to get on) and then having to unscrew 16 hex screws to remove a service plate just to add oil. Only in the last two years have they been retrofitting quick access panels aftermarket. It would have been sooner (just like the problem with the leading edge) but our company DO tried to bully the FAA and.even wasProud of how many FAA POI's he was able to train the Avantair way - do of course they dragged their feet when we needed things approved. So, the DO decided to send out a new GOM withal dive changes without approval by the POI!!! That was just one of the great mess ups by a DO that should be in prison rather than occupying that office. But that's what you get when your company fillsPositions with friends rather than by qualifications. And that is just a peek into why the FAA asked them to stand down operations a few times. So many stories - and most of them documented with pictures or video as proof. I took them to show to MX but I still have them. Shoot me a private message if you'd like to see some ;)

I just don't care for anything with a prop on it. A couple of years ago, while still doing some AA/Eagle work, I wound up on an ATR. I'm glad they got rid of them all. Them things were nasty, noisy, and slow. The only props I would like a crack at is one of these here that we are talking about and a Q400.

The Battery quick disconnect is another design flaw, yes. Human factors is an important aspect of aircraft design. Average human male height is 69 inches. I am 5'9" myself and could not reach the disconnect. I was not alone - so much so that in training we were told to use our suitcases to step on to reach the battery because they didn't want to use the tiny amount of cargo space on a ladder or step stool. I was kept from getting medical treatment so my lawyer did a little snooping - and it turns out that I was not the only one hurt this way. We found out that there were three big injuries that we got hard evidence of and two others we could not pove. To have 5 out of 250 pilots get seriously hurt from the design of the battery access is pretty substantial. Just like the fact 10% of our fleet had run off a runway. The plane looks nice and the figures look good on paper - but in reality it's pretty pathetic. I've got the truth on my side - not nervous jokes attempting to divert attention or poking fun at people. It's possible for other aircraft to have a single design problem in common with the P180 - but the piaggio has way too many. While I flew it I was ignoring the problems because I wanted to stay at the same job until retirement. But seeing how my company turned their back on me after I was injured - just as others who were hurt or used FMLA when they had a baby. I know because I defended many while I was on the PAC. I saw pilots who were at the company for nearly a decade let go because they refused to fly over gross, or with open write ups not covered by the MEL - and suddenly fail check rides or Orals. In retrospect I should have quit - but I was willing to overlook a lot for the 7 and 7 schedule. I didn't break a single rule-nor did I fly illegally - mind you! As someone who helped them promote the BS about the plane - trust me - its all cool aid!

Well, it all looks refreshing. It's good to know what goes into it. As far as your company turning their back on you after your injury. Sad as it is, there are a lot like that. When you start costing them money and can no longer produce, they start trying to throw you away, not realizing that you are a human being as well. They put you into an adversarial position out of necessity and survival. I've seen both sides of it and geberally the other side costs no more and then you have an assett at the end rather than an enemy.

I've seen both sides - and so has the US government. It showed the government how bad injured workers were treated that they gave legal protection to workers - a protection that should have deterred my company from letting me go. But they did anyway. Now I have to sue for damages- and the cost of that will far exceed the cost of keeping me on board. They were not paying any salary this whole time - and they even dumped their insurance so they stopped paying those premiums - but these cases cost millions - its not just the penalty and award - its the legal costs.

Looking at it from a maintenance point of view, Emphasis on "POINT" it is going to be fun to taxi, and even more fun to put into a hangar... For the sake of Mechanics working on this thing, I hope they have a nose cone to put over the tip... It looks lethal.

I think this will be a blend of the G650 and the G550. G650 is already rated to .95 mach, structure seems to be able to handle the sweep wings. The nose issue is a whole nother ball game. If they can get it out there far enough, the wave will have to travel farther out torwards the winglets. I could get on board with one of these. Great innovation from a Private American Comapany!!!

I remember back in '74 when I first saw a G-2, and boy was I excited. It was operating for Coca Cola, and the crew was very hospitable to me (line slime/gopher/refueler at the time), and invited me aboard for coffee and a danish. Thank you guys for your time and "motivational tour"! Wow!This jet however, reminds me of the one in the "Johnny Quest" cartoons series.

At least there's precedent of ground crew needing protection from the a/c. The F-104 Starfighter comes to mind. The leading edges of the wings were covered when on the ground to protect the unwary that might walk into them accidently.

The wing was extremely thin, with a thickness-to-chord ratio of only 3.36%. Its aspect ratio was 2.45. The wing's leading edges were so thin (0.016 in / 0.41 mm) and so sharp that they presented a hazard to ground crews

From a MX point of view, I see the potential for trouble with two things: the nose & the wings. Any time you have variable geometry anything, the weight and complexity of the associated systems skyrockets (flight controls, wing swing, anti-ice, etc). Can you imagine having to rig something like that?

My aeronautical engineering is a bit rusty these days, but if the reason for the extended nose is quieter flight past Mach 1, why not just have it extended all the time - ie a long skinny nose? Maybe that'd make it too hard for the driver to land/park it! Concorde has a drooping nose to allow better visibility.

True Peter-but the Concord is anything but a "quite technology" aircraft. The Ruskies are also developing this "quite" mode of supersonic flight, but from a different consept. Gosh, my Cessna 150 will never be the same now-